Miscarriages of JusticeUK (MOJUK) 22 Berners St, Birmingham B19 2DR to ask him/herself whether the sentencing court could conclude that the circumstances appli - Tele: 0121- 507 0844 Email:
[email protected] Web: www.mojuk.org.uk cable when the sentence as passed had changed as a result of knowing failures by the assist - ing offender to give assistance in accordance with the assisting offender agreement?” MOJUK: Newsletter ‘Inside Out’ No 660 (02/11/2017) - Cost £1 Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court, Lord Kerr stated “it is unquestionably true that in a number of instances, the judge found that the Stewarts had not been truthful”. Lord Supreme Court: DPP Correct in Deciding Not to Resentence Dishonest Witnesses Kerr found that the Court could not uphold the High Court’s view that “the predominant factor Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News: The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by in deciding where the interests of justice lay was whether a change in circumstances had the Director of Public Prosecutions against the finding of the High Court in Northern Ireland occurred between those which obtained at the time that the agreement with the specified pros - that the DPP’s decision not to remit dishonest witnesses for re-sentencing was contrary to the ecutor was made and the time at which consideration of whether to refer the case back to the interests of justice. Overturning the High Court's finding that the matter of sentencing should original sentencing court took place”. be remitted to the DPP for a fresh decision, Lord Brian Kerr was satisfied that the DPP con - Section 74(3) imposes no explicit constraint on how the specified prosecutor should approach ducted “a careful, perfectly legitimate investigation of the question of the interests of justice” the question of the interests of justice and it was Lord Kerr’s opinion that there was “no warrant and that her decision could not be impeached.